Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists.
The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

So your man, Ed Shultz, who was against any war W wanted has had an epiphany. Libya is a holy crusade according to the big guy. I think we can parse this. Bush devil, Obama god. I looked up himself on wikpedia and can find no evidence that he was ever in the military. Ed Shultz, the Rush Limbaugh chickenhawk of the left with a smaller audience.

Libya is no different from the other wars except this president is consulting congress even less. Shultz gets the Al Smith, no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney award.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

As the Neutralist, I suppose it is necessary to go on record concerning POTUS' speech explaining his actions as regards Libya for my readers, or maybe reader, or whatever. There is not too much to opine about. Your man said, “When our interests and our values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.” Of course I didn't come away with any real idea how our values or interests were at stake, but so what.

Now that I know "we have a responsibility to act," Iam ready. After I post this, I shall climb into my jet fighter and fly over to Libya to strafe those MG loyalist bastards. Oh, I don't have a jet and am not really going to strafe anyone. Oh, I get it, the corporate "We." So even though I'm not participating, it is being done in my name.

I am aghast. Just remember the words of a US Senator intoned in 2007, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." I wonder who that solon was?

Friday, March 25, 2011

Surfing a few sites this morning I came upon an article at Antiwar.com. It is a piece the Neutralist wishes he wrote. 10 Reasons the US Should Leave Libya NOW is a well ordered repository of the reasons not to be in Libya. If you know somebody who is on the fence or drinking the kool aid on the issue, urge them to read it. You don't change many minds in this life, but if someone is not invincibly ignorant, this should make an impact.

To show my gratitude to the author, I am going to steal part of her article. Specifically, Reason 9:

9. This goes against our founders’ vision for American foreign policy. Let me simply provide a few telling quotes:

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” — John Quincy Adams

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” — George Washington

“All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones.” — Benjamin Franklin

So called conservatives think a conservative foreign policy is "supporting the troops" (of course for them, that does not often mean being one) no matter what silly intervention is proposed. A real conservative war policy is to not get into wars as evinced by the quotes above.

Poor Bonnie Kristian, we have closed the competition. There will be no more entries. Bonnie Kristian is the Neutralist Rookie of the Year. Granted, it is not a much coveted award, and brings neither money or great applause. No matter, it's still less of a joke than the Nobel.

If Bonnie wants an 11th reason the Neutralist can supply one. The only successful exit strategy the US has executed was Viet Nam.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns -- after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces -- at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

From 1984 by George Orwell, Part 2 Chapter 9.

The analogy is not perfect, but it is close enough. David Corn tried to make the case that the Obama war is holy and Bush interventions, not so much. There is no real qualitative difference in the policy of the incumbent and his predecessor. Was Mr. Corn ever in show biz. He is quite a song and dance man.

Monday, March 21, 2011

So after dithering for what seemed like forever, A coalition of US and Euro countries with UN authorization is moving against Mo Q. The Arab League said that they wanted a no fly zone and passed a resolution to that effect.

Now that the coalition is sending the bombs and rockets, Les Arabes are not feeling it. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said, What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement carried by the Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

Hey Amr, sorry about that, but what did you expect? Broken and eggs and omelets, you know. The Neutralist position has always been hands off. Not meaning to be undiplomatic, but cher ami, maybe the Arab League could have imposed the NFZ on their own. Yeah, when there is a cold snap in the place of eternal damnation.

We, at the Neutralist are somewhat taken aback on the speed of the condemnation. we expected a more reasonable amount of time for the League to express its regrets.

Of course, even if it had been done perfectly, there is no chance gratitude would have been expressed.

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

No he didn't say that. No one as high up in government would follow the logic to its, well, logical conclusion. What Mr. Gates said you have probably read by now, but here it is,

“Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.”

Actually, there are so many logical conclusions you can get here. At least a good segment of the denizens of the Defense Department constituted a loony bin when they proposed and supported both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Asia, hmm. Why was Europe such a good idea? We are stuck there wasting money fighting a cold war that does not exist.

Fighting Spain, what did we get? A war in Asia, actually three. Getting the Philippines ensured an offshore Asian war and winning that one got us Korea and Viet Nam. How'd that work out"

Every war looks necessary at the time. It's like all the stupid things I did in college. Seemed like a good idea at the time. It rarely was.

And, of course, there is the call to save Libya. Good luck. The Libyans have more sense than all the people who are wringing their hands. They have said, no thanks. Yet over at Patrick Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis, There is a call for intervention. Col. Lang claims to be anti-intervtion, at least by temperament, yet he wants to go for it. There is a discussion going on and it is well worth a look. Link is here. Fabius Maximus has a good overview here.

The Neutralist Manisfesto

The United States should move to a neutral foreign policy. Troops, fleet and air forces should be withdrawn from foreign countries and only our own border secured.

The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up

What is to be expected

What is to be expected from the Neutralist? Unfortunately, not much. There are think tanks galore in this country for all shades of thought, but, so far, neutralism is an orphan with only one known supporter. The concept is tied up with the I word, Isolationism. To get noticed and be taken seriously will be next to impossible.

What is hoped? That the idea of neutralism will be noticed and that the concept of Wilsonian Internationalism will be seen as the failure it is. That at least a core group will form that will support the idea and spread it in blogs, articles and conversation. To get even that far would be near miraculous.

Links Policy

Any link to any site does not imply that the linkee approves of the Neutralist or its policy.

The Neutralist will try to link to sites it deems to be generally sympathetic to non interventionism.

We reserve the right to link because someone had one article or even a part of an article or post we liked.

We also reserve the right to link to sights we completely disagree with.